Shakira, you kiss your mother with that mouth

Despite what MTV and tons of other stupid public service announcements tell you, voting is NOT the best way to make sure your voice is heard. Singing is. I figured this out not too long ago when wondering why it is that the singers of the past 10-15 years seem so forgettable. Wasn't grunge just lazy, recycled punk? Weren't all the roots rockers just echoing the voices of the past? And wasn't "mainstream" music just as bad in the past? All this seems valid, so why is it that there are maybe 10 memorable singers of the past decade?\nPersonality. That's all there is to it. Talking Head David Byrne said something to the effect that singing is a tool to get people to listen to music longer than they normally would. \nThe popular music of the day will always be imitated, but at least in the past there seemed to be an attempt to stand out. Going against the current is what made people like Neil Young, Todd Snider, Bob Mould and Michael Stipe stand out. The same could even be said about Axl Rose. \nWe can blame boy bands and corporations all we want, but we're the ones buying the records. Each of the four Beatles had distinct voices yet they started off as the biggest boy band in rock history. In fact, even Ringo's voice is still more recognizable than the combination all of the Backstreet Boys or whoever's big this year. In the '60s, no one ever got Roger Daltrey confused with Robert Plant. In the '70s, when the popular style became a disgrace, people weren't afraid to proclaim that disco did indeed suck. The late '70s and '80s gave us some of the greatest voices in rock, if not some of the most politically annoying in the likes of Bono, Sting, Morrissey, Chrissie Hynde and Tom Petty.\nI didn't realize how bad it had gotten until I caught a glimpse of Shakira "performing" live. Let me first excuse myself for watching and listening for three full songs. \nI've never understood the analogy of driving by a horrible wreck and not being able to turn away until this performance. \nOn her albums, Shakira sounds a lot more like a nameless, faceless sex symbol, I now realize this was a blessing. The dance genre known as "the tango" should sue her for defamation for using the very word in the title of her lame, watered-down "Objection (Tango)." It's important to have personality, but pick one, and make it a good one. I just want a little personality in the vocals, not Jerry Springer-style multiple personalities.\nUsually it's enough to just have one terrible voice, but Shakira's like an "American Idol's Worst Of," the stuff that's so bad they don't even show it on TV for the sake of the contestants' relatives. \nEver the vocal chameleon, Shakira's as nasal as Alanis Morrisette one minute and belting them out with all the finesse of Cher the very next pitch. Eddie Vedder may have made imitating livestock cool, but Shakira simply takes the sheep impersonation too far mixing it with Joni Mitchell, minus the accuracy and wonderfully rounded tone. \nNot everyone has to be an opera singer. Jay Farrar and Paul Westerberg miss notes with the same perfection and grace that Aretha Franklin hits them. Who would take Thom Yorke seriously if he tried to sound like Brian Wilson anyway? I'm not even asking for great lyrics anymore. On the other hand, I'd love to hear that Madonna hired Lou Reed to write for her just once. \nOne of the few singers to have grasped this point in the last 15 years is Farrar (Uncle Tupelo, Son Volt). He used his throaty, off-kilter vocals to say things that couldn't be said by feigning passion or pain. Listen to how in "Still Be Around" he lets down his guard in a sad resignation that cuts deeper than any cliched scream could. \nI have no problem with pop music in general. It doesn't even bother me so much anymore when an artist becomes a gimmick or an image and rides it out. It's almost unavoidable. But when there are so many other great voices out there, why choose such a horrible one to listen to?